Researcher profile

Joshua Stevenson

Joshua Stevenson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Rearrangement Events on Circular Genomes

Early literature on genome rearrangement modelling views the problem of computing evolutionary distances as an inherently combinatorial one. In particular, attention was given to estimating distances using the minimum number of events required to transform one genome into another. In hindsight, this approach is analogous to early methods for inferring phylogenetic trees from DNA sequences such as maximum parsimony -- both are motivated by the principle that the true distance minimises evolutionary change, and both are effective if this principle is a true reflection of reality. Recent literature considers genome rearrangement under statistical models, continuing this parallel with DNA-based methods; the goal here is to use model-based methods (for example maximum likelihood techniques) to compute distance estimates that incorporate the large number of rearrangement paths that can transform one genome into another. Crucially, this approach requires one to decide upon a set of feasible rearrangement events and, in this paper, we focus on characterising well-motivated models for signed, uni-chromosomal circular genomes, where the number of regions remains fixed. Since rearrangements are often mathematically described using permutations, we isolate the sets of permutations representing rearrangements that are biologically reasonable in this context, for example inversions and translocations. We provide precise mathematical expressions for these rearrangements, and then describe them in terms of the set of cuts made in the genome when they are applied. We directly compare cuts to breakpoints, and use this concept to count the distinct rearrangement actions which apply a given number of cuts. Finally, we provide some examples of rearrangement models, and include a discussion of some questions that arise when defining plausible models.

preprint2022arXiv

Evaluation of the relative performance of the subflattenings method for phylogenetic inference

The algebraic properties of flattenings and subflattenings provide direct methods for identifying edges in the true phylogeny -- and by extension the complete tree -- using pattern counts from a sequence alignment. The relatively small number of possible internal edges among a set of taxa (compared to the number of binary trees) makes these methods attractive, however more could be done to evaluate their effectiveness for inferring phylogenetic trees. This is the case particularly for subflattenings, and our work makes progress in this area. We introduce software for constructing and evaluating subflattenings for splits, utilising a number of methods to make computing subflattenings more tractable. We then present the results of simulations we have performed in order to compare the effectiveness of subflattenings to that of flattenings in terms of split score distributions, and susceptibility to possible biases. We find that subflattenings perform similarly to flattenings in terms of the distribution of split scores on the trees we examined, but may be less affected by bias arising from both split size/balance and long branch attraction. These insights are useful for developing effective algorithms to utilise these tools for the purpose of inferring phylogenetic trees.